Top Ten Reasons not to join a Reformed Baptist Church

[Iconoclast]

My guess is that I am more Reformed than you, having been raised in a conservative Presbyterian Church. I have enough respect for the doctrines not to trash them with an unworthy name. Who cares what the law of the land was at the time? Was it right? Are our abortion laws right?

He had some errors? If someone was going to be executed, it should have been him. They had the same Scripture we do. His writings talk against church and state mixture, yet, he was in a position of church-state rule. Sounds kind of like Mitt Romney.

I do not believe we know what exactly was the situation....I have heard presbys give a defence of that situation....but my point is that God is his judge.

I cannot be a talebearer, in taking what someone says about someone else...if I do not know exactly waht happened.

This could be another thread in and of itself.I think it is not wise to just dismiss John Calvin...or presbyterians because of one or two areas of teaching.

Calvins name gets brought up by baptists...to try and avoid dealing with some of the theological differences. Many a baptist does not even know why they are baptist....[theologically]

 

[saturneptune]

I do not believe we know what exactly was the situation....I have heard presbys give a defence of that situation....but my point is that God is his judge.

I cannot be a talebearer, in taking what someone says about someone else...if I do not know exactly waht happened.

This could be another thread in and of itself.I think it is not wise to just dismiss John Calvin...or presbyterians because of one or two areas of teaching.

Calvins name gets brought up by baptists...to try and avoid dealing with some of the theological differences. Many a baptist does not even know why they are baptist....[theologically]

Well all I can tell you is why I became a Baptist without losing the reformed theology. One was the baptism we already discussed. Another is church hierarchy. I do not want a board of presbyters telling the local church who is going to be pastor, or what they can or cannot do to their building, or what they can spend. There is different views on this, but I have no use for elder rule, as elders tend to be no more spiritually mature than the average church member, and are usually elected based on social status. Protestant churches believe in an invisible, universal church (different than the Catholic visible universal) whereas Baptists believe in a local visible church. The universal church never helped the poor, spread the Gospel, administered a Lords Supper or Baptism, or took up an offering, so basically on this earth, a worthless organization. I do not want to recite the Apostles Creed every Sunday, ad nauseum, so the words become a chant. The Bible is the only creed we need. To join a church, someone should not have to go through a multi month course, then be approved by a session of elders. The local churches in the NT added people daily. Another man made circus. Other than that, Presbyterians are solid in theology, including eternal security.

 

[gb93433]

The doctrines of God's sovereignty and grace deserve a better name than the likes of Calvin. He had his hand in the Michael Servetus murder, and opposed it as a public relations ploy. His writings include infant baptism, and it is obvious he believed in theocracy. I cannot believe a Baptist would be proud of that name, reformed or not.

I agree. People choose to repeat what they agree with and disregard what they do not. Too often they know nothing about what they believe but what they believe someone else said who seems to be credible in their eyes. Some people are name droppers rather than students of God's word.

 

[Thousand Hills]

The article is an attempt at humor.....It was posted in the Reformed Baptist fellowship....which is usually very serious posting.....This was meant to be humor..sort of like .....you might be a redneck it...Jeff Foxworthy does

Okay, it took me a while to come up with these but here goes....

You might be a reformed redneck if..........................
(1) The biggest fight you ever had with your wife was wether or not to name your first born daughter Dolly-Grace or Loretta-Grace
(2) The rear bumper of your pickup truck is proudly adorned with a "NRA" bumper sticker, a "Skoal Bandit" bumper sticker, and a "Calvin 500" bumper sticker.
(3) You have a billy goat named Spurgeon
(4) You search record shops, yard sales, and flea markets hoping to find a version of Willie Nelson singing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"
(5) Your first question when you get to heaven is going to be "You willin to sell any of those cattle on a Thousand Hills?"

 

[gb93433]

The Bible is the only creed we need.

Tell that to the folks today who want a creed. I have trouble enough understanding everything in the Bible. The more I study the more i see how much ignorance has been propagated over the years. The Bible must be our standard.

To join a church, someone should not have to go through a multi month course, then be approved by a session of elders. The local churches in the NT added people daily.

I agree and disagree. The problem I have is how much ignorance and immaturity abounds in churches today. Seems to me that the measure of leadership is found in their disciples not in their head knowledge of what business they own or lead.

I disagree in that it seems to me that each person should have a basic knowledge before becoming a member. That does not take very long.

One time I was in a church that had a membership class and there was a lady and her son who wanted to become members. Each us went around the room and gave our testimony. Her son was first and she was last. When it came to her she said something like well I guess I need to make that decision. So she made that decision to follow Jesus after hearing the testimonies of everybody.

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon:
If you really want the truth about Reformed doctrine you will enjoy this man as he expounds it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch6niCdIv_Q&feature=related

:laugh::laugh::laugh:Sadly.....this poor display has me praying that God might save this man. At around 12-13 minutes in the message ...he says that God does not have to quicken dead sinners......this man can just go convince them to believe.....they Do not need God to give them a new heart or anything...they just need "this soul winner" to give them some information.
He has a natural misunderstanding....no evidence of The Spirit at work.

He out right denies the God of the bible, [he says he does not believe in a God who chooses, like many here on BB]he twists everything.....God waits to see ,and learn who will believe,then he chooses them....

Then the old stand by 2pet3:9......and of course he claims to a biblicist,

Then the old God loves the sinner, hates his sins...He mocks bible truth.. does not understand any of the 5 points

other than that...it was just wonderful:thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:Sadly.....this poor display has me praying that God might save this man. At around 12-13 minutes in the message ...he says that God does not have to quicken dead sinners......this man can just go convince them to believe.....they Do not need God to give them a new heart or anything...they just need "this soul winner" to give them some information.
He has a natural misunderstanding....no evidence of The Spirit at work.

He out right denies the God of the bible, [he says he does not believe in a God who chooses, like many here on BB]he twists everything.....God waits to see ,and learn who will believe,then he chooses them....

Then the old stand by 2pet3:9......and of course he claims to a biblicist,

Then the old God loves the sinner, hates his sins...He mocks bible truth.. does not understand any of the 5 points

other than that...it was just wonderful:thumbsup:

ROFL .... No but he hates them.....total pathetic ignoramus.

Id like to see this schmuck try to debate a guy like Al Mohler, Sinclair Ferguson or RC Sproul. He would get pulled through a keyhole backwards.

 

[gb93433]

If people took the time to better understand Judaism during the time scripture was written then there would not be so much ignorance among those who claim to study the Bible. Thankfully there is more and more interest in the historical background of scripture rather than "what is says to me" theology and interpretation.

 

[Amy.G]

.........
other than that...it was just wonderful:thumbsup:

I told you that you would have a response. :laugh:

 

[seekingthetruth]

Well, that came out of left field...

Seriously, how are these comments in any way related to what Icon posted?

Sorry about that. It's just that most Baptists tend to answer spiritual questions with scripture, not creeds or confessions, and it seems strange to me to see a Baptist rely on them so much. The Catholic Church is what i associate those things with.

Maybe I am wrong about his post, but it appeared to me that he was talking about "congregational responses" recited for the sake of ritual. Such as I have seen with my Catholic friends.

Sorry but this seems strange for a Baptist. That being said, i will refrain from commenting further out of respect.

John

 

[DHK]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:Sadly.....this poor display has me praying that God might save this man.

There certainly is no reason to question his salvation. He doesn't believe in TULIP, as many don't. Dave Hunt, in his book, "What Love is This," also dismantles all five points of TULIP. There are many who have done it. There is no need to question their salvation. I also agree with this position. It is Biblical. I believe you have a wrong interpretation of 2Pet.3:9 and 1John 2:2 and are unwilling to face the truth of these verses because it so devastates your position.

BTW, none of us deny the working of the Holy Spirit. His work is clearly defined in John 16. He came to convict the world of sin and of judgment and of righteousness, which he clearly does. I prefer to believe the Bible on these matters, not some made-up doctrine that says that regeneration precedes salvation, is totally mysterious as to how it takes place, but at that time God gives faith to believe at the time of salvation. This position is totally unbiblical and has never been shown to be true in Scripture. It has only been inferred.

 

[saturneptune]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:Sadly.....this poor display has me praying that God might save this man. At around 12-13 minutes in the message ...he says that God does not have to quicken dead sinners......this man can just go convince them to believe.....they Do not need God to give them a new heart or anything...they just need "this soul winner" to give them some information.
He has a natural misunderstanding....no evidence of The Spirit at work.

He out right denies the God of the bible, [he says he does not believe in a God who chooses, like many here on BB]he twists everything.....God waits to see ,and learn who will believe,then he chooses them....

Then the old stand by 2pet3:9......and of course he claims to a biblicist,

Then the old God loves the sinner, hates his sins...He mocks bible truth.. does not understand any of the 5 points

other than that...it was just wonderful:thumbsup:

We disagree on some points, but I like your style and enjoy your posts.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Dave Hunt, in his book, "What Love is This," also dismantles all five points of TULIP.

According to WiKi:

James White, a Calvinist, has charged Hunt with misrepresenting Calvinistic teachings, and as having insufficient knowledge of Reformed theology, or original Biblical languages, to accurately evaluate Calvinism.

 

[gb93433]

According to WiKi:

James White, a Calvinist, has charged Hunt with misrepresenting Calvinistic teachings, and as having insufficient knowledge of Reformed theology, or original Biblical languages, to accurately evaluate Calvinism.

Isn't that a common argument among calvinists? It seems to be a case of trying to grab a greased pig. I have read a lot of Calvin's works and many have not, but yet they continue to say I misrepresent calvinist's point of view. Seems strange when someone who has never read Calvin would claim that others misrepresent what they call themselves.

I am a Christian and scripture defines that clearly. So someone cannot claim to have themselves misrepresented when the standard has already been set.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Isn't that a common argument among calvinists? It seems to be a case of trying to grab a greased pig. I have read a lot of Calvin's works and many have not, but yet they continue to say I misrepresent calvinist's point of view. Seems strange when someone who has never read Calvin would claim that others misrepresent what they call themselves.

I am a Christian and scripture defines that clearly. So someone cannot claim to have themselves misrepresented when the standard has already been set.

Specifically, what are you referring to as a "Common argument among Calvinists?" & are saying that I (ME PERSONALLY) have never read Calvin or are you imposing that commentary on someone else? For your edification , I have read Institutes & his golden books as well as other sermons & commentaries....but I dont know if you are referencing me in your own above commentary? So I ask the question for clarification.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here you go .....Whites letter to Hunt

http://vintage.aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html

 

[Jerome]

According to WiKi:

James White, a Calvinist, has charged Hunt with...having insufficient knowledge of...original Biblical languages, to accurately evaluate Calvinism.

LOL. Take a look at the 'superior' language skills of James White's tiny 'Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church' on display at their homesite on the interwebs:

http://www.prbc.org/about/deacons.htm

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Praesent aliquam, justo convallis luctus rutrum, erat nulla fermentum diam. . .

Bizarre.

 

[DHK]

Calvin didn't write in English. The acrostic, TULIP, did not come from Calvin. In fact it is doubtful that he believed in the points represented by that acrostic. Calvin's commentaries can easily be found on-line. Look up his commentary on John 3:16. Calvin does not believe in a limited atonement according to his comments of that verse. What is being spouted as Calvinism today under the guise of Reformed Theology is far from what Calvin actually believed.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

LOL. Take a look at the 'superior' language skills of James White's tiny 'Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church' on display at their homesite on the interwebs:

http://www.prbc.org/about/deacons.htm



Bizarre.

Yea that is nuts ..... now I am curious as to what thats all about. Im going to write them. The church looks lovely though LOL

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Calvin didn't write in English. The acrostic, TULIP, did not come from Calvin. In fact it is doubtful that he believed in the points represented by that acrostic. Calvin's commentaries can easily be found on-line. Look up his commentary on John 3:16. Calvin does not believe in a limited atonement according to his comments of that verse. What is being spouted as Calvinism today under the guise of Reformed Theology is far from what Calvin actually believed.

Thats pretty much correct....everyone needs to review the historical contexts. I would suggest the book Historical Theology by Greg Allison. Its a textbook really but very informational.